Commercial trucking insurance is high-stakes gambling. Insurance premiums are the wager—a bet on the fleet, drivers, and safety practices. The insurance company is the "house," accepting that bet in hopes the fleet won’t incur significant claims. But what goes on behind the scenes? How do insurance companies calculate the odds, and what happens if they miscalculate? Here’s a closer look at commercial trucking insurance.
The Gamble: Premiums, Odds, and Actuaries
When setting premium rates, insurance companies rely on actuaries, the industry’s "odds makers." These experts use historical data and risk models to calculate the likelihood of claims. They analyze factors like accident frequency, claim costs, and inflation trends. Setting the minimum premium, or “bet.” Insurance brokers act as intermediaries, like a bookie, between trucking companies and insurers. They earn commissions to facilitate these relationships.
Actuarial calculations are only as reliable as the data they use. If the data is wrong the resulting odds and premiums may misrepresent actual risks. Insurers may overcharge safe trucking companies or undercharge riskier ones. These inaccuracies, if widespread, drive up premiums across the industry. Insurance companies offset losses by charging all policyholders higher rates, ensuring that everyone bears the brunt of miscalculated risks.
Actuaries vs. Underwriters: Understanding Their Roles
While actuaries work with numbers, underwriters assess a company’s specific risk factors. For instance, underwriters examine a trucking company’s Carrier Profile and safety rating. A "Satisfactory" rating typically indicates strong risk management and may lead to lower premiums, whereas a "Conditional" rating suggests potential issues, leading to stricter rates or additional charges. Now is a good time to re-read my blog, Don’t look behind the curtain! unveiling the Alberta Transportation safety scam. Unlike actuaries, underwriters consider a broader range of factors, including safety practices, maintenance programs, and driver qualifications.
Insurance Models in Canada: Public, Private, and Self-Insured
In Canada, insurance systems vary by province, with three main models: public (government-managed), private, and self-insured.
Captive insurance can be structured as either "pure" captives for individual companies or "group" captives that pool resources across multiple companies, sharing risks and lowering costs. Captives can offer cost control, customized coverage, and better claims management—attractive benefits for companies looking to optimize their insurance options. Now think of a group of “chameleon carriers” getting together to self-insure, no risk there.
Limiting Liability: Knowing Your Policy and Exclusions
Understanding your policy and identifying gaps in your safety and maintenance program is of the upmost importance. These gaps could be used against you when approving or denying claims. Insurance companies may scrutinize records during an incident review especially if the carrier has a black swan event. Insurance companies are looking for evidence to limit liability, looking for reasons to minimize claim payouts. Key areas for attention include:
Complete and accurate documentation can be the difference between an insurance payout or a hefty company expense. For example, if a wheel flies off the carrier needs to be able to show regular inspections and re-torques.
In commercial trucking insurance, exclusions refer to specific situations, events, or types of damages that the insurance policy will not cover. These exclusions are important to understand, as they indicate which risks and scenarios the carrier will be financially responsible for if they occur. If you smash up your vehicle while driving impaired the insurance company doesn’t pay for a new car.
Common exclusions often include:
Final Thoughts: Navigating the Insurance Gamble
The relationship between trucking companies and insurers is an intricate blend of risk, probability, and strategic management. With proactive documentation, a comprehensive safety program, and a thorough understanding of policy limits, companies can make the most of their insurance—and minimize surprises when they need it most. Lack of reliable regulatory oversight from federal and provincial governments has resulted in inaccurate carrier information, allowing trucking companies on the road that do not meet safety standards. Two things will happen, insurance companies will put pressure on regulators to do their jobs, or insurance companies will have to do enhanced compliance reviews before insuring a carrier. Insurance companies cannot use inaccurate carrier profile information and bogus TPA (third party auditors) audits anymore to determine risk.
Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) in Canada mark a significant step toward potentially shifting liability in commercial trucking. ELDs automatically track driver’s driving and on-duty hours using the data from the Electronic Control Module (ECM) of the vehicle SOR/2005-313 77(1). Flagging violations that could indicate driver fatigue or out-of-service conditions SOR/2005-313 section 91. The Federal Hours of Service SOR/2005-313 87 (1) requires that carriers monitor the driver’s compliance in real-time, using the data from the ELD, with the ultimate goal of preventing out-of-service drivers from operating on public roads. This regulation could be used to impact liability determinations and insurance claims in the event of a collision. By documenting instances where drivers were operating in out-of-service condition, ELDs expose both the driver and the carrier to increased liability and, potentially, significant financial penalties.
Liability and ELD Data in Black Swan Scenarios
The continuous recording and monitoring of driving and on-duty times not only keeps drivers in check but also holds carriers accountable for a driver’s compliance. If a driver is within 30 minutes of a duty status limit or off-duty requirement the ELD alerts the driver and the carrier. The ELD alerts the driver and the carrier if any device or connection issues are detected or any periods of driving time with no driver logged in to the ELD device. This setup ensures that carriers have a real-time mechanism for preventing overworked drivers from being on the road. If an accident occurs while a driver is in an out-of-service condition, both the driver and the carrier are liable because, a driver in an out-of- service condition is not supposed to be driving. A driver in an out-of- service condition is required to immediately stop and not continue driving until the out-of- service condition is resolved. If the driver was following the regulations the driver would not have been in the location of the incident because they would not have been driving.
The Federal Hours of Service SOR/2005-313 section 91 are the out-of- service conditions:
91 (1) (b) driving time or off-duty time requirements.
91 (1) (c) no RODS – fail to produce.
91 (1) (d) duplicate RODS, inaccurate information and falsification.
91 (1) (e) falsified/destroyed RODS or supporting document.
91 (1) (f) ELD that has a disabled, deactivated, disengaged, jammed or otherwise blocked. ELD that has been re-engineered, reprogrammed or otherwise tampered with so that it does not accurately record and retain the data that is required to be recorded and retained.
If a driver is found to be in an out-of-service condition due to tampering, SOR/2005-313 86 (3), the driver is out-of-service until the tampering is corrected, which may be longer than the maximum 72 hours. 91 (4) The out-of-service declaration in respect of a driver who contravenes section 86 continues to apply beyond the 72 hours until the driver rectifies the record of duty status, if applicable, and provides it to the director or inspector so that the director or inspector is able to determine whether the driver has complied with these Regulations.
Tampering: SOR/2005-313 86 (3) No motor carrier shall request, require or allow any person to, and no person shall, disable, deactivate, disengage, jam or otherwise block or degrade a signal transmission or reception, or re-engineer, reprogram or otherwise tamper with an ELD so that the device does not accurately record and retain the data that is required to be recorded and retained.
Scenario 1: Driver Exceeding a Daily Limit
Driver has exceeded a daily limit SOR/2005-313 91 (1) (b) and is in an out-of-service condition at the time of an accident. The fault lies entirely with both the driver and the carrier because SOR/2005-313 87 (2), the carrier is to take immediate action when non-compliance is detected. ELD RODS are real-time information; detection of an out-of-service condition is immediate, and the carrier is obligated to prevent drivers from operating in such a state. In such cases, the insurance company may decline the claim, as the driver should not have been on the road at that time. This shifts the liability from the broke driver to the carrier, who has money, assets and substantial insurance coverage.
Scenario 2: Malfunction, Disconnected ELD and Unidentified Driving Event
If an ELD malfunctions or loses connection to the engine control module (ECM), it triggers a visual and/or audible alarm for both the driver and the carrier. The carrier and the driver are supposed to work together to correct and clear the data diagnostic codes. If the malfunction protocol was not followed or the device is in a chronic malfunction because the ELD is not connected to the ECM or not receiving power that is tampering, SOR/2005-313 86 (3). With data missing or compromised, there is no way to verify the driver’s actual driving time, making it possible for an insurance claim to be denied. A driver that does not log in to the ELD will incur unidentified driving events and will not be able to generate a RODS SOR/2005-313 91(1) (c). The carrier is responsible to assign the driving time to the correct driver, the Technical Standard 3.1.6.
The Canadian Insurance Model
Canada’s insurance models, divided into public (no-fault) and private (tort-based) systems, also influence how ELDs could impact claims. In no-fault provinces, each driver’s insurance typically covers their own costs, limiting cross-claims for damages. However, in tort-based provinces like Alberta, at-fault drivers can be sued for damages, opening the door for high-dollar claims against carriers. In cases where ELDs reveal negligent oversight by the carrier, plaintiffs could target carriers, leading to “nuclear verdicts” similar to those in the United States. “Nuclear verdicts"—verdicts costing over $10 million in damages—are common in American trucking accident cases. Trucking litigation data between 2006 and 2019 showed 26 cases over $1 million from 2006 to 2011. In the last five years of that data set, 300 cases cost over $1 million. A recent study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform showed that between June 2020 and April 2023, the average award was $27.5 million.
Given the growing availability of data from the ELD and ECM (engine control module), it is possible that insurance companies will begin to request these records as part of claim investigations involving a commercial truck. With such evidence, insurers can make stronger arguments for denying coverage when non-compliance is documented. Historically trucking companies involved in an accident blame the driver, maybe get a shockingly low administrative penalty from the provincial government, get an insurance premium bump and continue on unscathed. How many drivers are in jail compared to company owners and safety officers? Exactly, murderers get convicted using GPS data why not ELD and ECM data?
Case Study: Tracey Morgan Walmart Crash as a Liability Example
The 2014 Tracey Morgan Walmart crash underscores the consequences of driver fatigue and the accountability of carriers in managing compliance. In that case, Walmart’s driver had been on duty for over 23 hours, with minimal sleep before his shift. Although Walmart had telematics data on critical driving events, it did not act on these insights, which could have prevented the accident. The $90 million settlement, influenced by Walmart’s failure to mitigate fatigue risks, exemplifies how data-based liability can result in significant penalties.
Conclusion
The shift to ELD’s in Canadian trucking introduces a new level of accountability, where drivers and carriers could be held to real-time monitoring standards. This technology empowers insurers and regulators to have a seat in the cab with the driver. As ELDs continue to integrate into the regulatory and insurance frameworks, carriers may face increased financial risk if they fail to act on data insights, making comprehensive compliance essential for both safety and business resilience. Insurance companies make money by increasing rates or paying less claims, a real time, certified record of non-compliance is probably enough evidence to deny a claim.The federal and provincial governments do a terrible job of monitoring or enforcing anything when it comes to commercial vehicle safety. If the governments are not going to do their jobs, then the insurance companies will have to do it.
If you smash up your vehicle driving drunk your insurance company is not going to pay for your new car. In commercial policies these are called exclusions, check out my next week blog where I explain exclusions and why insurance companies won’t have to pay.
There have been lots of news stories recently of trucking companies abusing the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) and Labour Market Impact Assessments (LIMA). It’s not a new problem but, it's a problem that has worsened in tough economic times, with blame often unfairly falling on immigrant workers, rather than the structural flaws within the programs themselves.
The reality is that foreign workers were invited to Canada because their skills were needed to fill gaps in critical industries like trucking, where there are not enough domestic drivers to meet demand. Therefore, it’s both unethical and immoral to penalize these workers by revoking their status when they were invited here. History tells us rounding up people for mass deportation never goes well. The core issue lies in the flaws of the programs under which they entered, as well as the lack of enforcement and oversight of these programs.
The government needs to allocate sufficient resources to enhance oversight. After all, if millions of dollars can be spent on projects like ArriveCan and the two Randy’s, surely the Federal government can afford more resources to monitor how these foreign worker programs are being administered. At the heart of the issue are “closed work permits,” which tie workers to a single employer, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. Workers facing abuse are unable to leave their employer without jeopardizing their immigration status, creating a near-hostage situation where they cannot access basic social safety nets like employment insurance or welfare.
The Saskatchewan government’s contradictory policies illustrate how misguided approaches to foreign worker licensing can worsen the problem. The Saskatchewan government in 2021 prohibited all non-residents, including foreign workers, from driving on out-of-country Class 1 licences. This same government in 2024 is allowing foreign agriculture workers from 40 countries to drive on their home country's licence for up to a year, until May 21, 2025. Those countries include European countries, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal and Taiwan. Similarly, federal investments, such as the $46.3 million allocated to Trucking Human Resources Canada for driver recruitment and training, exist because there is a critical shortage of truck drivers, not because immigrant workers are displacing Canadians.
The question then becomes: how do we fix this? One answer lies in closing the loopholes that allow unscrupulous trucking companies to employ foreign drivers who may not meet Canadian driving standards. At roadside inspections, it’s assumed that a driver with a valid Canadian license is working legally, but if they present a foreign license, there is no seamless mechanism for immediate enforcement or detention, as immigration issues are beyond the scope of provincial transportation roadside enforcement departments. The solution is for the federal government to crack down on these employers, rather than the workers themselves, through sanctions and more aggressive investigations. Why not give these drivers a legitimate path to citizenship or work permit and put them through the Red Seal driver training programs that are being developed?
In 2024, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology released a paper calling for an end to closed work permits, marking a step in the right direction, but this remains only a recommendation. The Government of Canada has announced plans to overhaul the TFW program, though concrete reforms may take years to be implemented.
The bottom line is that immigrants are not the problem—broken immigration programs with little to no oversight are. It’s time to stop vilifying foreign workers and hold the government accountable for managing these programs. Big problems need big solutions that involve co-operation between Transport Canada, Canada Revenue Agency, Canada Immigration and Citizenship and Canada Border Services Agencies. Without this collaboration, Canada will continue to face a fractured system that leaves workers vulnerable and fails to meet the demands of key industries like trucking.
At the end of September, The Vancouver Sun highlighted the issue of emissions from heavy and medium-duty trucks in British Columbia, drawing attention to the problem of operators tampering with emission controls using "delete kits." These kits essentially disable emission-reducing technologies in trucks, leading to higher levels of harmful emissions. While Metro Vancouver is poised to present a report on this to a climate committee, this issue has been prevalent for years across Canada. Ontario, for example, has been grappling with delete kits for over six years now.
Metro Vancouver has outlined three potential solutions to decarbonizing the trucking industry:
I hate to state the obvious but, 2019 called, they want their problem back! Delete kits have been an issue for a long time. Maybe it takes a few years for problems to migrate from Ontario to British Columbia. Metro Vancouver could have saved themselves some time and energy and just read all the information Ontario has been publishing for the last 6 years.
These are all important goals, and the industry has been working on these solutions for some time. But, in reality, the immediate challenge lies in the interim period. The reason delete kits are so common is simple: emission systems in older trucks, particularly from the early 2000s, are unreliable. Trucking companies can't afford the downtime caused by malfunctioning emission systems, so many take a "fix it or fuck it" approach, opting for delete kits to keep trucks running.
A significant barrier to addressing delete kits is the lack of consistent enforcement and inspection criteria across Canada. While some jurisdictions have made strides in identifying tampered vehicles, roadside inspectors and repair technicians lack Canada-wide guidelines. For instance, in April 2023, British Columbia raised this issue with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), asking that emission controls be added to Level 1 inspections. This is what was decided: Canada has a regulation in NSC 11B that the exhaust cannot be tampered with. Discussion about how enforcement can determine this roadside, such as with glider kits. Enforcement may not be able to identify which parts, if any, are missing from the system without proper training, however, in some jurisdictions in Canada, roadside inspectors are trained to detect delete kits/tampering, etc. This is like a shock absorber which is a violation in Canada but not in the US. There is no regulatory section in Part 393 that would allow the inspection and a violation to be written regarding the emission system. The consensus is we leave it alone in the United States, unless a state law addresses it. Canada may address it through relevant laws and it would be a critical inspection item under Exhaust (therefore, the vehicle, in Canada, would not obtain a CVSA decal if a violation of the emissions system was present in Canada). In no case, would this be an OOSC condition. There is no uniform agreement across North America.
In Alberta, the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Manual (CVIP) still exempts emissions controls from inspections until future regulations are introduced. This leaves many sections of the 2014 NSC 11B, particularly those related to diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) systems, unenforceable. Ontario, on the other hand, has specific inspection criteria and penalties in place, making it the only province that actively enforces regulations on delete kits.
Ultimately, as provinces like British Columbia and Alberta lag in enforcement, the trucking industry is evolving. By the time regulatory amendments are made, manufacturers may have resolved emission control issues, or trucks may have switched to alternative fuels entirely. Until then, the enforcement of delete kits remains inconsistent, with Ontario leading the charge while other provinces struggle to keep up. If a truck fails a level 1 CVSA inspection anywhere but, Ontario I would ask to see the inspection criteria used to determine the truck was deleted.
The real question is, in the time it takes for studies and regulatory changes to occur, how much further will the industry progress, and how much will the problem of delete kits still matter?
As an Alberta-based carrier, understanding the intricacies of Safety Fitness Certificates (SFC) is essential for compliance and avoiding costly penalties. A common question that arises is whether an Alberta-based carrier with a Provincial SFC can operate outside of Alberta by simply purchasing permits in other provinces like British Columbia or Saskatchewan. The short answer is no, and here's why.
Intra-Provincial vs. Extra-Provincial: Know the Difference
First, let’s clarify the two types of SFCs:
It’s crucial to understand that an Intra-Provincial SFC does not give you the flexibility to temporarily operate outside Alberta by buying a permit in another province. The permits available in British Columbia and Saskatchewan that many carriers refer to are for vehicle registration (IRP) and fuel tax (IFTA) purposes, not for operational authority. This common confusion often leads carriers into regulatory trouble. Yes, I know your cousin’s uncle that owns a trucking company has been doing it for years but, that just means they haven’t been caught yet.
Why Permits Don’t Equal Permission
Many carriers mistakenly believe that purchasing a permit for registration or fuel tax allows them to operate extra-provincially. However, these permits are solely for the legal use of highways (registration) and the payment of fuel taxes. They do not grant you the authority to pick up or deliver loads outside Alberta.
The responsibility of understanding the need for a Federal SFC falls on the carrier. Unfortunately, Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division do not provide education on this requirement. Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section focus is on compliance, and they expect carriers to be informed about the regulations governing their operations.
The Siloed System and Its Impact
One of the reasons carriers often find themselves in violation is the lack of communication between various government departments. Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, the departments responsible for permits and those overseeing SFCs operate in silos. This means that when you obtain a permit from one department, there is no cross-communication to inform you of other regulatory requirements, like the need for a Federal SFC.
This disconnect often results in carriers unintentionally violating regulations. Operating extra-provincially with an intra-provincial SFC the carrier is not just risking tickets or penalties but, extra-provincial carriers carry insurance that intra-provincial carriers do not. Should the carrier have an accident while outside the jurisdiction the insurance company may deny that claim and open the carrier up to liability.
The High Stakes of Non-Compliance
Safety Fitness Certificate follows the virginity rule, you only get one shot. An Alberta carrier with a Provincial SFC that is stopped operating in another jurisdiction would be made Federal and the carrier would have to apply to return to intra-provincial. The regulation AR 314/2002 Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance Regulation Section 6 4.2(1)(c) uses the wording operates or intends to operate. Getting caught operating extra-provincially proves the intention to operate. Operating with an Intra-Provincial SFC outside Alberta is not just a minor infraction—it’s a serious violation.
Carriers operating extra-provincially require ELDs, speed limiters, and are required to pay Provincial Sales Tax (PST) in jurisdictions like British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Non-compliance with these requirements may put the carrier on the radar of Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section and the carrier will be caught on the never ending NSC Audit wheel of fortune.
Final Thoughts: Stay Educated and Compliant
Remember, Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section role is enforcement, not education. Ignorance of the law is no excuse; carriers must take the initiative to educate themselves on the regulatory environment they operate in. Investing time in understanding these regulations can prevent significant headaches down the road. Stay informed, stay compliant, and keep your operations running smoothly.
BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
The federal vs provincial SFC is an Alberta system, not BC. A BC NSC Certificate is not different for carriers whether they operate only in province or over borders.
If you have a Provincial SFC, you will need to apply and obtain a Federal one in order to cross into BC. We do not issue permits changing a carrier's standing or operational category.
SASKATCHEWAN SGI PERMIT OFFICE
Saskatchewan does not have any permits that covers the provincial safety fitness, customers need to have their fitness safety changed to federal before entering SK
The Government of Alberta announced changes to the MELT Class 1 Mandatory Entry Level Training program, turning the program into an apprenticeship model. These changes are urgently needed today but, it will take time to launch the program and is expected March 1, 2025. Currently MELT drivers pay upwards of $10,000.00 to obtain a Class 1 drivers licence and then most can’t find a job because insurance companies require two years of over the road experience. This apprentice model should fulfill the insurance company requirements and hopefully open federal funding for new students.
All of this is great stuff but, the reality is Alberta will produce quality, well trained drivers and put them to work in an industry that is a disaster. It is like raising Kobe beef only to sell it to Burger King. If commercial driving is going to be a trade, then it is time to hold the road transportation industry to that trade standard.
Transport Canada and the provinces and territories need to take a hard look at the road transportation sector and make some changes. There is zero accountability for trucking companies that utilize questionable practices like Driver Inc to circumvent taxes, immigration and human rights regulations. Driver Inc is a model based on commercial drivers, who do not own/lease or operate their own vehicle. These drivers are becoming incorporated and not paying source deduction like income taxes or Employment Insurance. The prevalence of chameleon carriers operating across Canada highlights the need for greater oversight and enforcement measures. A chameleon carrier is a trucking company that, if cited or closed down for a marginal safety record, quickly changes its name and address and restarts operations.
Chameleon carriers operate unchallenged across Canada, in Alberta the penalty for lying on a Safety Fitness application to fraudulently obtain a Safety Fitness Certificate is $1000.00 and the company is allowed to keep operating. To compare, also in Alberta, the penalty for not stopping for an invasive species boat inspection is $4200.00. Why does Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors (TEC) not take road safety as serious as Alberta Environment takes protecting our lakes?
Alberta does not have accurate enforcement information from all jurisdictions, see my blog, Don’t look behind the curtain! unveiling the Alberta Transportation safety scam. Unless the provincial jurisdictions specifically contact each other about unsafe carriers potentially moving into other jurisdictions, a tragedy is usually the first notification. There is not a central transportation regulatory body in Canada that collects safety data as there is in the United States, the broken carrier profile system all we have in Alberta.
These sketchy chameleon carriers also can be self-insured. Because of this they can cause mayhem, then go bankrupt and start over with zero consequence. Trucking company insurance minimum requirement in Alberta is $10 million dollars. How much do you think a bridge or infrastructure strike costs to repair? British Columbia recently substantially increased the fines and jail time for drivers that hit structures. What about the trucking company that employs the driver? It may be the driver’s fault but, it is the carrier’s responsibility.
The lack of support systems for both rookie and experienced drivers exposes them to exploitation and mistreatment within the industry. Drivers have zero complaint options, even after being abused, unpaid, disrespected, forcibly dispatched and worse. Complaint procedures in Alberta are convoluted and inadequate, leaving drivers without effective recourse when faced with issues such as unpaid wages or unsafe working conditions. Alberta TEC, Compliance and Oversight department complaint procedures are an offense to the rights of workers that need urgent protection. The complainant is sent a witness statement via email. The issue is that the document it is a non-fillable PDF, so the driver needs to print it, physically fill it in, sign it, scan it, and email it back. How does that help or support the driver? Consider a driver that finally gets the courage to complain to the government and gets told to fill out a form. Drivers in a Driver Inc. situation working for chameleon carriers that go bankrupt and leave unpaid wages are not eligible for employment benefits because they are not employees. As a Driver Inc driver the only option is to get a lawyer and sue. Kobe beef cattle has more protections than drivers in Canada.
The qualified driver shortage is a real safety problem, and more training and experience is better for drivers and everyone on the road. Changes must be made in conjunction with large-scale fundamental improvements to the carriers and industry that employ these drivers. Commercial driving is dangerous and lonely with poor pay, no wage guarantees, terrible working environments with limited rest areas and parking. Unless you fix systemic issues, these red seal drivers will leave the industry or die on the highway trying. Make commercial driving a trade that people aspire to undertake the training and time to become a red seal, anything less is another waste of drivers’ time of money.
On May 31, 2024, the British Columbia Attorney General’s office filed a lawsuit against a commercial carrier and a driver for damages, losses and expenses to repair a bridge damaged in an incident. This is a bold move for the Attorney General’s office and depending on the outcome it may open the door to other jurisdictions following suit.
In August 2022, a commercial vehicle was involved in an incident while transporting dangerous goods and the result was catastrophic. The driver was killed, a vital bridge was significantly damaged, and the community was cut off from essential services. The bridge is still being worked on and the current estimate is $4.25 million. In British Columbia the insurance liability limits for a commercial carrier are 10 million per occurrence and an extra $2 million for the dangerous goods. Maybe the British Columbia government should increase the minimum insurance liability limits to an amount that reflects the cost replacement value of a bridge today? In British Columbia it is a public insurance model, and this is just a matter of changing the insurance regulations.
In this case, the insurance company is never going to have to pay a dime to the carrier because the Attorney General has already pinned the blame on the company and the driver. The insurance company (who is the BC Government) has many many things to “limit liability”, when paying insurance claims. Good luck getting $4.5 million out of a trucking company and a driver’s estate. I personally do not know many drivers taking home that kind of money. The trucking company will go bankrupt with lawyer fees and what point is being made?
In its lawsuit, the federal government doesn't pinpoint exactly what caused the truck to crash into the bridge. Instead, it alleges that negligence from both the company and the driver "caused or contributed to" the crash and the resulting fire. The statement of claim says Troyer Ventures allegedly failed to check that the truck was "mechanically sound," inspect its brakes and ensure that the driver was properly trained for transporting dangerous goods. It also includes a long list of alleged errors made by the driver, ranging from neglecting to ensure the truck was sound and operating "while his ability to drive was impaired by fatigue or other factors."
The lawsuit does not provide evidence indicating how the incident occurred but, they allege the driver and company had a role to play. You know who else has a role to play? The provincial jurisdictions that are supposed to be monitoring commercial carriers to ensure the company has a maintenance program and is conducting vehicle inspections. Under the National Safety Code (NSC Standard 7) the provincial jurisdictions are required to use enforcement information from all of Canada and the United States to determine if the carrier meets the national safety standards. The carrier in the lawsuit, according to the public carrier profile system, currently holds an Alberta Safety Fitness Certificate with a Satisfactory safety rating. A Satisfactory rating means the carrier had a review by the Government of Alberta or a Third Party Auditor (TPA), who are certified by the Government of Alberta. That review found the Carrier has achieved acceptable results on NSC audit; the Carrier has not been identified on Alberta Transportation's monitoring list in the past 12 months and the Carrier has no outstanding compliance issues. Blowing up a bridge and a fatality from 2022 is not an outstanding compliance issue in 2024?
Two crucial aspects to bear in mind:
Dave Earle, the CEO and president of the B.C. Trucking Association said there is not enough staff and not enough enforcement being done. Now we have a situation for those inspections that are getting done, the data is not being received by the jurisdictions that are responsible for monitoring the carrier. The data the jurisdiction is using to determine safety isn’t correct or timely, is it any wonder that transportation safety is such a shit show? Nobody is watching.
If the British Columbia Attorney General is going to hold a carrier and a driver responsible, then I believe the Attorney General has a few bridge strike carriers to review. The same bridge strike carrier that is operating in Alberta because, it’s Transportation and Economic Corridors Department and Alberta is open for business. You can’t sue one carrier and not sue all the carriers that cause significant damage and death. Lawsuits go both ways, if the Attorney General is going after carriers and drivers then I know more than a few families who should consider suing their respective provincial jurisdictions for knowingly allowing operations despite glaring compliance issues and the jurisdiction’s own operational failings of compliance and oversight. We all have a role to play in transportation safety.
In the world of commercial transportation, safety is paramount. To ensure the safety of drivers and other road users, regulations and monitoring programs are essential. One such program is the National Safety Code (NSC), which sets standards for commercial vehicles, drivers, and motor carriers in Canada. This code, though not law, is crucial in guiding provincial and territorial governments in drafting their safety regulations. In Alberta, the regulations are outlined in the Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance Regulation, AR 314/2002 (Part 4.1).
NSC Standard 7 is the criteria for carrier and driver profiles. The Carrier Profile system is designed to provide an overview of a carrier's safety performance, encompassing records of infractions, collisions, on-road inspections, and facility audits. This system allows Alberta to monitor carriers' performance and take action against those posing safety risks across North America.
The Carrier Profile acts as a report card for carriers, offering transparency to stakeholders like shippers, insurance companies, and the public. By accessing this information, stakeholders can make informed decisions about engaging with specific carriers, promoting safety and accountability within the industry.
However, there is a critical issue with the reliability of the Carrier Profile data. Despite its intended purpose, there is a significant flaw in data sharing between jurisdictions. Alberta is not accurately capturing enforcement data from other provinces. This oversight means that Alberta trucking companies involved in incidents outside the province may not have their records updated promptly or accurately on their Carrier Profiles.
The implications of this data discrepancy are concerning. Carriers with incomplete or delayed information may not face the necessary interventions or audits, leading to inaccuracies in their risk factor scores. This discrepancy could potentially result in carriers maintaining a clean record, qualifying for insurance discounts, and evading enhanced monitoring or audits due to inaccurate risk assessment.
Moreover, the shortcomings extend to the auditing process itself. TPA (Third Party Auditors) do not have encryption keys and cannot audit unencrypted RODS. TPA (Third Party Auditors) lack proper training, support, and communication channels with Alberta Transportation, leading to flawed audits that further impact safety compliance determinations. This systemic issue raises questions about the effectiveness and integrity of the safety oversight program in Alberta.
Despite federal funding allocated to enhance road safety and data exchange initiatives, the existing gaps in the Carrier Profile system highlight a critical need for improvement. The discrepancy between intended safety measures and operational shortcomings underscores the urgency for corrective actions and increased accountability within the transportation safety framework.
Why is Alberta Transportation allowed to continue a program that is fundamentally flawed? Why are taxpayers paying salaries to a leadership group to run a flawed program? This is just another example of government inertia that is allowed to continue unabated while bureaucrats collect taxpayer salaries to do a terrible job. As taxpayers and stakeholders invested in road safety, it is essential to demand transparency, efficiency, and accuracy in safety monitoring programs. Accountability and rectification of existing flaws are imperative to uphold the standards of safety and compliance in the commercial transportation industry.
In conclusion, the revelations regarding the Alberta Transportation safety monitoring system shed light on the need for reform and transparency in data sharing and auditing processes. By addressing these issues, we can ensure that carriers are held accountable, road safety is prioritized, and the integrity of safety compliance programs is maintained for the well-being of all road users.
In the arena of politics and government decision-making, lobbying is a controversial practice that often sparks debates and raises concerns about its influence on public policy. While lobbying can serve as a powerful tool for advocacy and positive change, it also has a dark side marked by unethical behaviors and potential manipulation of government regulations.
Lobbying, defined as the act of attempting to influence decisions made by government officials, is a common practice in both the United States and Canada. However, the way lobbying is conducted, and its impact vary between the two countries. In the United States, the connections between lobby groups and donations to government officials have raised suspicions and led to scrutiny, especially during presidential elections. On the other hand, Canada has a smaller lobbying industry with less influence of money, but it is not immune to lobbying scandals.
One such scandal that rocked the Canadian political landscape was the SNC-Lavalin affair, where a prominent engineering company engaged in unlawful lobbying activities to secure a government agreement. The scandal shed light on the ethical and legal implications of lobbying practices, highlighting concerns about transparency in government decision-making and the potential for undue influence on public policy.
While cases like the SNC-Lavalin scandal tarnish the reputation of lobbying, not all lobbying efforts are harmful. Advocacy organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in Canada have successfully lobbied for stricter laws and policies to combat impaired driving, leading to tangible improvements in road safety and a reduction in alcohol-related accidents.
However, the issue arises when lobbying serves the interests of specific industries at the expense of public safety and accountability. This example of the Alberta Motor Transport Association (AMTA) lobbying on behalf of the Canadian Association of Energy Contractors (CAOEC) to secure exemptions raises questions about the integrity of lobbying practices.
The AMTA successfully lobbied Alberta Transportation and got exemptions to the Oilfield Exemption Permit as it relates to the Hours of Service regulations. Specifically, under this permit, a driver does not have to use the prescribed log book required in the Hours of Service regulation. Drivers under this permit are already exempt from using a ELD and should be using a paper log to meet the Hours of Service requirements. However, because of lobbying instead of a paper log these drivers are allowed to record working time on a “tour sheet”. The criteria for a “tour sheet” only requires the total on-duty and off duty hours for the day. No work shift start and end time is required. There is absolutely no way for an auditor to confirm total off duty requirements are met if there is no start and end time. The CAOEC essentially got an exemption to the very heart of the regulation which is to ensure drivers are getting adequate off duty time. By influencing Alberta Transportation to grant exemptions that compromise driver safety and accountability, the AMTA and CAOEC showcase how lobbying can be used to circumvent regulations for the benefit of industry interests.
Farmers and Ranchers in Alberta have been asking for a ELD permit or a ELD exemption for years and it has been ignored. The disparity in treatment between different sectors, as seen in the case of farmers and ranchers in Alberta seeking ELD permits or exemptions, further underscores the need for fair and transparent lobbying practices.
When government decisions prioritize economic interests over public safety, it creates a concerning precedent that undermines the trust in regulatory processes. Unethical lobbying practices erode trust in government institutions and jeopardize public welfare. It is crucial for policymakers, advocacy groups, and citizens to remain vigilant and hold lobbying activities with government accountable to ensure transparency, fairness, and ethical conduct in shaping government decisions.
